Navigate:

Barack Obama, trustbuster?

Obama vowed in the last election to make up for 'lax enforcement' of antitrust laws. | Reuters

Following his 2008 pledge, successive chiefs of DOJ’s antitrust division have tried to help fulfill his pledge. The first, Christine Varney, said in a 2009 speech, “We are faced with market conditions that force us to engage in a critical analysis of previous enforcement approaches. That analysis makes clear that passive monitoring of market participants is not an option.”

One of Varney’s first moves was to reverse the DOJ’s stance on monopoly abuse cases, rejecting a Bush DOJ report advocating more restraint. No monopolization cases were brought during the Bush DOJ in eight years; Obama’s DOJ has brought only one, against United Regional Health Care System of Wichita, Texas.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Beating H&R Block in court last year to stop its acquisition of online tax preparation maker TaxAct was a watershed moment for the division's litigators, and it served notice to industry that the agency was back in litigation mode. It likely helped persuade AT&T to abandon its $39 billion bid for T-Mobile after DOJ indicated it was willing to go to the mat to stop it.

Meanwhile, the FTC has aggressively pursued monopolization cases against the likes of chipmaker Intel, pharmaceuticals paying generic manufacturers to keep rival drugs off the market, hospitals and health care businesses, and it’s now investigating Google. But the agency has also allowed big business deals to proceed that it determined didn't violate antitrust laws. In April, the commission bucked the opposition of lawmakers and consumers groups to allow a $29 billion merger of two of the nation's biggest pharmacy benefits companies, Express Scripts and Medco Health Solutions.

"President Obama's interest in antitrust is real and it's terrific and he says he wants an aggressive approach to law enforcement and we want that too," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz told POLITICO. "But the other thing you need is good judgment and balance. That’s what you see during his administration."

Richard Feinstein, the FTC's competition bureau chief, said the agency's track record has also persuaded some companies to settle. In 2010, Intel settled a monopolization case and agreed to stop giving benefits to computer makers that bought chips exclusively from them and retaliating against those that didn't. That same year, Transitions Optical, a maker of eyeglass lenses that tint dark in sunlight, settled a monopolization case and agreed to stop cutting exclusive deals with distributors and retailers.

Unlike taxes or health care or war, it’s been a century since antitrust law factored heavily in a presidential campaign.

In 1912, enforcement of antitrust laws was the main issue in a race between President William Howard Taft, former President Roosevelt and — the victor — Democrat Woodrow Wilson. While it was Roosevelt's foreign policy to which he applied the famous “big stick” phrase, he also menaced big business enough as president to give the government more regulatory power over monopolies.

After the election, legal scholars say, Wilson’s administration ushered in passage of the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, which, along with the Sherman Act from the 1890s, became the cornerstones of modern U.S. antitrust law.

Also Obama's idea's of protecting consumers is to let the government take over like he did with the FCC giving itself regulatory authority over the internet. Does anyone think the internet is broken without government reguation, or do you want to see the government take over it?

Bleat all you want, but this is a good move. As technologies "merge" (TV, broadband, satellite communications, etc) the regulatory guidelines have a HUGE impact on our overall costs. And there are many many opportunistic finance weasels who just sit ready to exploit the consumer if we don't have someone with the consumer interest in mind.

"And Obama’s supporters say he has amassed a record on trust-busting that reflects a difference between his view of government's relationship with big business and that of his 2012 rival, Republican Mitt Romney."

General Secretary Hussein believes in the command economy model. It is the governments job to tell the private markets what to do.

"After being a darling of Wall Street in 2008, Obama is now battling the perception that he’s anti-business, and, while his antitrust activism hasn’t ended up fodder for political ads, even insiders say it doesn’t bode well for fundraising on Wall Street."

In many ways, it’s strange that Obama made antitrust enforcement a campaign issue at all, but antitrust enforcement is a vital concern in corporate boardrooms across America — more consequential than a new regulation from the EPA or the Labor Department, for sure.

More consequential than a new regulation from the EPA?

Is anyone aware of the EPA's next major push? It will make the changes they have mandated for the auto industry look like a blip on the screen.

Taxpayers has already lost OVER $25 billion BAILING OUT General Motors, here's BAD NEWS for Obama; General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again

President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

Verizon is extremely expensive and has terrible customer service - but that is because they have worked hard to gain themselves a near monopoly. When good, honest business men have worked hard like this, only a SOCIALIST would attack them to try and lower prices!

The market knows all and will sort out any issues eventually, let the market run its course!

It has been proven over and over again that trying to bust a monopoly just leads to more people out of work and poor - its like taxes, if you let the rich pay NO taxes we will be happy and create jobs.

This is why Mitt will not release his tax returns - of COURSE he paid no taxes - he did it legally and with good lawyers he can afford. We don't need the poor realizing that rich men like Mitt pay little to no taxes, that will just upset them and the poor need to focus on what they can do to get a job and stop slurping from the govt. trouth, not worrying about Mitt's tax expertise!